I've seen the cat. Once you see it, you realize what's really wrong with the economy.

The Henry George theorem demonstrates that government spending soaks into land value. Thus, unless land value is taxed instead of destructive taxes on productivity, enjoy being robbed blind by land owners.

Land monopoly is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly.

Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public.

Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position -- land, I say, differs from all other forms of property, and the immemorial customs of nearly every modern state have placed the tenure, transfer, and obligations of land in a wholly different category from other classes of property.

Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of land monopolists to claim that other forms of property and increment are similar in all respects to land and the unearned increment on land.

They talk of the increased profits of a doctor or lawyer from the growth of population in the town in which they live. They talk of the profits of a railway, from the growing wealth and activity in the districts through which it runs. They talk of the profits from a rise in stocks and even the profits derived from the sale of works of art.

But see how misleading and false all those analogies are. The windfalls from the sale of a picture -- a Van Dyke or a Holbein -- may be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labor; they do not touch enterprise and production; they do not affect the creative processes on which the material well-being of millions depends.

If a rise in stocks confers profits on the fortunate holders far beyond what they expected or indeed deserved, nevertheless that profit was not reaped by withholding from the community the land which it needs; on the contrary, it was reaped by supplying industry with the capital without which it could not be carried on.

If a railway makes greater profits it is usually because it carries more goods and more passengers.

If a doctor or a lawyer enjoys a better practice, it is because the doctor attends more patients and more exacting patients, and because the lawyer pleads more suits in the courts and more important suits. At every stage the doctor or the lawyer is giving service in return for his fees.

Fancy comparing these healthy processes with the enrichment which comes to the landlord who happens to own a plot of land on the outskirts of a great city, who watches the busy population around him making the city larger, richer, more convenient, more famous every day, and all the while sits still and does nothing.

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains -- and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labor and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived.

While the land is what is called "ripening" for the unearned increment of its owner, the merchant going to his office and the artisan going to his work must detour or pay a fare to avoid it. The people lose their chance of using the land, the city and state lose the taxes which would have accrued if the natural development had taken place, and all the while the land monopolist only has to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes many fold, without either effort or contribution on his part!

But let us follow this process a little further. The population of the city grows and grows, the congestion in the poorer quarters becomes acute, rents rise and thousands of families are crowded into tenements. At last the land becomes ripe for sale -- that means that the price is too tempting to be resisted any longer. And then, and not until then, it is sold by the yard or by the inch at 10 times, or 20 times, or even 50 times its agricultural value.

The greater the population around the land, the greater the injury the public has sustained by its protracted denial. And, the more inconvenience caused to everybody; the more serious the loss in economic strength and activity -- the larger will be the profit of the landlord when the sale is finally accomplished. In fact, you may say that the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done. It is monopoly which is the keynote, and where monopoly prevails, the greater the injury to society the greater the reward to the monopolist. This evil process strikes at every form of industrial activity. The municipality, wishing for broader streets, better houses, more healthy, decent, scientifically planned towns, is made to pay more to get them in proportion as is has exerted itself to make past improvements. The more it has improved the town, the more it will have to pay for any land it may now wish to acquire for further improvements.

The manufacturer proposing to start a new industry, proposing to erect a great factory offering employment to thousands of hands, is made to pay such a price for his land that the purchase price hangs around the neck of his whole business, hampering his competitive power in every market, clogging him far more than any foreign tariff in his export competition, and the land price strikes down through the profits of the manufacturer on to the wages of the worker.

No matter where you look or what examples you select, you will see every form of enterprise, every step in material progress, is only undertaken after the land monopolist has skimmed the cream for himself, and everywhere today the man or the public body that wishes to put land to its highest use is forced to pay a preliminary fine in land values to the man who is putting it to an inferior one, and in some cases to no use at all. All comes back to land value, and its owner is able to levy toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry. A portion, in some cases the whole, of every benefit which is laboriously acquired by the community increases the land value and finds its way automatically into the landlord's pocket. If there is a rise in wages, rents are able to move forward, because the workers can afford to pay a little more. If the opening of a new railway or new tramway, or the institution of improved services of a lowering of fares, or of a new invention, or any other public convenience affords a benefit to workers in any particular district, it becomes easier for them to live, and therefore the ground landlord is able to charge them more for the privilege of living there.

Some years ago in London there was a toll bar on a bridge across the Thames, and all the working people who lived on the south side of the river had to pay a daily toll of one penny for going and returning from their work. The spectacle of these poor people thus mulcted of so large a proportion of their earnings offended the public conscience, and agitation was set on foot, municipal authorities were roused, and at the cost of the taxpayers, the bridge was freed and the toll removed. All those people who used the bridge were saved sixpence a week, but within a very short time rents on the south side of the river were found to have risen about sixpence a week, or the amount of the toll which had been remitted!

And a friend of mine was telling me the other day that, in the parish of Southwark, about 350 pounds a year was given away in doles of bread by charitable people in connection with one of the churches. As a consequence of this charity, the competition for small houses and single-room tenements is so great that rents are considerably higher in the parish!

All goes back to the land, and the land owner is able to absorb to himself a share of almost every public and every private benefit, however important or however pitiful those benefits may be.

Land is not the product of your or anyone else's labor and thus can not be right fully owned. Ownership of land deprives other people of their liberty to use land which they otherwise could.

Land in the desert in the middle of nowhere? Not worth much. Land in the middle of a city? Worth a lot. Who contributes more to society? The land owner in the middle of the desert or the land owner in the middle of London?

Answer: NEITHER. They both contribute NOTHING.

The land owner charges you for accessing services, infrastructure, natural benefits, etc. around land, none of which the land owner provides. He gets money in return for NOTHING. The land owner not only does not contribute in any way, the land owner does the opposite: LEECH.

Another statistic:
At least one poster on ISH was so distracted by the boobs in the pic that he did not take the time to fully read "King Kong" and started looking for Kim Jong Il in the picture instead.

Another statistic:
At least one poster on ISH was so distracted by the boobs in the pic that he did not take the time to fully read "King Kong" and started looking for Kim Jong Il in the picture instead.

Land is not the product of your or anyone else's labor and thus can not be right fully owned. Ownership of land deprives other people of their liberty to use land which they otherwise could.

Land in the desert in the middle of nowhere? Not worth much. Land in the middle of a city? Worth a lot. Who contributes more to society? The land owner in the middle of the desert or the land owner in the middle of London?

Answer: NEITHER. They both contribute NOTHING.

The land owner charges you for accessing services, infrastructure, natural benefits, etc. around land, none of which the land owner provides. He gets money in return for NOTHING. The land owner not only does not contribute in any way, the land owner does the opposite: LEECH.

Don't really agree with this. I haven't opened that link, just read this post.

Land is property, and properties are one of the privileges that people can own. How is land not the product of your or anyone else's labor? In fact millions around the world are working, just to save up so they can buy their own land or house. You put in the years, the money, the huge investment, years of your life, so that you can own that property.

When they own their own property, whatever they want to do with it is their business. It was an investment, and now they can reap all the benefits from it. Talk about economy, this is basic economics. The demand exists, which is why the price is high.

What else would you have, all property owned by the Sovereign? I don't think that's a better choice either.

Don't really agree with this. I haven't opened that link, just read this post.

Land is property, and properties are one of the privileges that people can own. How is land not the product of your or anyone else's labor?

It was there without the help of you or anyone else. You did not provide the land and you did not get it from anyone who provided it.

Quote:

In fact millions around the world are working, just to save up so they can buy their own land or house. You put in the years, the money, the huge investment, years of your life, so that you can own that property.

Who are they buying that land from? Did land owner provide the land? What did the land owner do to deserve that money?

A lot of people try to become privileged with a lot of effort because the only way to stop being a slave to land owners is to become a land owner yourself.

Quote:

When they own their own property, whatever they want to do with it is their business. It was an investment, and now they can reap all the benefits from it. Talk about economy, this is basic economics. The demand exists, which is why the price is high.

What else would you have, all property owned by the Sovereign? I don't think that's a better choice either.

It is an investment just like owning slaves was an investment. Just because it's an investment does not mean you rightfully earn that money. Land owning just entitles you to other people's earnings.

And government is already the sovereign. That's what government is. The sovereign over a certain amount of land. It currently just gives land owners the privilege of collecting economic rent in return for nothing. What needs to be done is put a 100% tax on land value. No taxes on production necessary.

That way people get to keep the value they produce for society and pay society for the value they get from it.

Sorry but with that logic, you can start questioning a lot more things. What is money? Why does money carry value? Who gives value to it?
Why should we be charged if we want to go to certain places? Doesn't it belong to the Earth? etc etc etc even more stupid questions.

Basically going around in circles. Land from the very beginning was owned by the governing body, who then passed it on to the people. Why should they have the land? Because international law says so. Look up what a "state"'s technical definition is.

Quote:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

The state governs the land, offers protection and law for the people. In return, people follow the law and gain rights to own property. The constitution, all that.

You start your way here and work your way down on how land is eventually owned by the public today.

Basically i think this is just another philosophical question, which makes no sense really, which is why it isn't put in force, and why the system is as it currently is.